Assistant Newsletter Editor, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation

A doctor fell in a deep well
and broke his collar bone.
The moral: Doctor, mind the sick
and leave the well alone.

This famous poem arrives, though somewhat absurdly, at a good moral: Tend to the sick, not the well. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” We should examine the debate, science, and economics of global climate change in light of this principle, arriving at a responsible course of action.

Debate: “The time for argument is over,” say countless environmentalist politicians. “All the scientists agree.” But is there really a consensus in favor of anthropogenic ("man-made") catastrophic global warming theory? Not a chance! Marc Morano, of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee recently published the report, ”More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.” So much for “consensus.” Besides, as Copernicus, Columbus, and others have demonstrated, “consensus” proves nothing (except, sometimes, where the money and power are).

Science: CO2 is not a significant factor in global warming. Human CO2 emissions are only a minuscule fraction of the whole of CO2, anyway. More and more scientists have been demonstrating sun- and cloud-driven climate change. Warming and cooling is cyclical, too, explaining the global cooling scare of the 1970’s. In the past several years the latest warming cycle seems to have stopped and the globe is cooling again.

Economics: Even if the globe were warming dangerously (which it is not) and human CO2 emissions played a sizable role (which they do not), the mitigation policies promoted by many liberal and conservative politicians alike would be ineffective and, in fact, highly detrimental. World-class economist Bjorn Lomborg, with the Copenhagen Consensus, demonstrated that adaption to climate change and aid for third world countries are far safer, more effective, and less costly than reducing Carbon emissions. CO2 is vital to the very lives of all humans and non-Carbon-emitting energy sources are comparatively rare and expensive. Popular “green” policies would be fatal to the poor who struggle to pay energy bills (if they have energy at all).

So what is a responsible course of action? Mind the sick and leave the well alone. Fighting “global warming” is ineffective, irresponsible, and even deadly. Instead, people should use their resources to help the poor enhance their lifestyles, which would better prepare the world to adapt to any temperature changes. But as far as climate change policies go, as Lord Christopher Monckton tells restless legislators, ”The right answer to a non-problem is to have the courage to do nothing.”

For further analysis, see the work of scientists such as , Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., Lord Christopher Monckton, Ross McKitrick, Ph.D., S. Fred Singer, Ph.D., Patrick J. Michaels, Ph.D., and John R. Christy, Ph.D., among many others. More great climate information can be found online at Cornwall Alliance, We Get It!, Heartland Institute, Climate Depot, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, Science & Public Policy Institute, Watts Up With That?, and Climate Audit.